The enemies of health reform are 0 for 6

[buck]

Of course, they ignore the fact that most can get subsidies and the data doesn't include subsidies.

That's 80% of buyers on the exchange that are getting subsidies. The buyers on the exchange are a small portion of all insurance buyers...

So, your claim that "most can get subsidies" is false.

Edit: I especially like the "begging" headline. Can we finally agree

 

[clownboy]

On the positive side, I think anyone who participates on a debate forum is exposing themselves to different opinions. On the negative side, the fact that people seek out opinions that align w their previously held beliefs, and dismiss everything else, is a problem

Indeed, we have several partisans in this thread alone who are doing just that.

Do you deny that pre A.C.A. people w pre-existing conditions were denied H.Insurance? Do you deny that out of pocket expenses could be catastrophic in the event of a major health set back? Do you deny insurers were known to comb through people's medical histories looking for excuses to deny paying for care?

Yes, and that is one of the two good provisions of the bill, the rest is crap. Those two provisions could have been passed in a single page bill to bi-partisan support. Obamacare is the reverse of poison pill legislation. Instead of one provision spoiling the bill, the entire bill is poison but for the two provisions.

Frankly, I have seen it all. I can see problems w the A.C.A. but I don't expect the ocean liner we call our health care system to change course over night.

As have all of us who have worked in the healthcare field. And it's a good thing it won't change overnight, sudden right turns are death for societies.

 

[MTAtech]

That's 80% of buyers on the exchange that are getting subsidies. The buyers on the exchange are a small portion of all insurance buyers...

So, your claim that "most can get subsidies" is false.

Edit: I especially like the "begging" headline. Can we finally agree

I stand corrected.

But we should agree -- or at least stop denying -- that the ACA is working.

 

[clownboy]

I stand corrected.

But we should agree -- or at least stop denying -- that the ACA is working.

A broken arm will likely still "work".

 

[buck]

I stand corrected.

But we should agree -- or at least stop denying -- that the ACA is working.

It worked at creating some winners at the expense of many losers.

 

[Born Free]

I stand corrected.

But we should agree -- or at least stop denying -- that the ACA is working.

Yeah it's working, it's working the best it can to destroy our economy, loss of jobs, it's working hard at increasing taxes and issuing fines etc. It's working alright.

In fact it's working so good, you are going to gain seats in the senate and take back the house and once again control all three branches of government that gave us Obamacare failure in the first place. You can then do a repeat on some new entitlement freebie legislation that everyone loves.

 

[Cassandra]

Indeed, we have several partisans in this thread alone who are doing just that.

Well my point was that everyone does that to some extent. We are ALL biased! The A.C.A. has been very positive for me and my family so naturally I want it to be generally successful.

Yes, and that is one of the two good provisions of the bill, the rest is crap. Those two provisions could have been passed in a single page bill to bi-partisan support. Obamacare is the reverse of poison pill legislation. Instead of one provision spoiling the bill, the entire bill is poison but for the two provisions.

But as you know- everything flows from those handful of important provisions. There would not have been bipartisan support because Insurance cos. would not have allowed the absence of a mandate and the mandate would have been unworkable w/o premium assistance etc etc. ..all this has been discussed many times by others, of course.

 

[MTAtech]

Yeah it's working, it's working the best it can to destroy our economy, loss of jobs, it's working hard at increasing taxes and issuing fines etc. It's working alright.

In fact it's working so good, you are going to gain seats in the senate and take back the house and once again control all three branches of government that gave us Obamacare failure in the first place. You can then do a repeat on some new entitlement freebie legislation that everyone loves.

Except that it is not destroying our economy; not responsible for losing job and is not increasing taxes on anyone except the high earners, who should be paying higher taxes.

Whether the Democrats will win politically over the right-wing noise machine, is another matter, and not the test of whether the ACA is a good idea or not.

 

[MTAtech]

Yes, and that is one of the two good provisions of the bill, the rest is crap. Those two provisions could have been passed in a single page bill to bi-partisan support. Obamacare is the reverse of poison pill legislation. Instead of one provision spoiling the bill, the entire bill is poison but for the two provisions.

No, you can't just pass two provisions. If you want to cover people with preexisting conditions, you must have community rating. If you don't want a death spiral -- that is, if you don't want people signing up only when they are sick and to keep an acceptable risk pool, you have to have an individual mandate. If you are going to have an individual mandate, you have to have subsidies for lower-income Americans. And that’s Obamacare: a three-legged stool, with all three legs essential.

 

[Jack Hays]

The next big question . . . .eace

Get Ready for a Bigger Threat to Obamacare - Jonathan Turley, LA Times

Now that the Supreme Court has issued its ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, the legal fight over the Affordable Care Act will shift a few blocks away to another Washington courtroom, where a far more fundamental challenge to Obamacare is about to be decided by the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Indeed, if Hobby Lobby will create complications for Obamacare, Halbig vs. Burwell could trigger a full cardiac arrest.



The Halbig case challenges the massive federal subsidies in the form of tax credits made available to people with financial need who enroll in the program. In crafting the act, Congress created incentives for states to set up health insurance exchanges and disincentives for them to opt out. The law, for example, made the subsidies available only to those enrolled in insurance plans through exchanges "established by the state."
But despite that carrot — and to the great surprise of the administration — some 34 states opted not to establish their own exchanges, leaving it to the federal government to do so. This left the White House with a dilemma: If only those enrollees in states that created exchanges were eligible for subsidies, a huge pool of people would be unable to afford coverage, and the entire program would be in danger of collapse.

 

[Born Free]

Except that it is not destroying our economy; not responsible for losing job and is not increasing taxes on anyone except the high earners, who should be paying higher taxes.

So you say

Whether the Democrats will win politically over the right-wing noise machine, is another matter, and not the test of whether the ACA is a good idea or not.

Of course it is, everyone loves good legislation and the party that got it passed is rewarded by the public, not scorned. But you know the public hates Obamacare and that hate will show up in the midterms. Count on it.

 

[clownboy]

No, you can't just pass two provisions. If you want to cover people with preexisting conditions, you must have community rating. If you don't want a death spiral -- that is, if you don't want people signing up only when they are sick and to keep an acceptable risk pool, you have to have an individual mandate. If you are going to have an individual mandate, you have to have subsidies for lower-income Americans. And that’s Obamacare: a three-legged stool, with all three legs essential.

No, and no. The two good provisions I was referring to were those that opened things up for those with pre-existing conditions and allowing adult children to be covered on their parents' policy until age 26. No stool there. No mandate either. The problems with people signing up when they are sick is easily addressed through regulation. Btw, both those provisions had republican support. The insurance companies signed on early in the process when Obama promised them (in closed door meetings) that single payer was off the table.

The rest of the bill is crap.

 

[sangha]

Those who are against Obamacare are against Obamacare and no amount of facts showing how it is an improvement on what we previously had is going to change their minds. One would think that showing how their predictions of doom never materialized would have changed their minds. But no, they just dig their heels in deeper and double-down on being wrong.

In a perfect world people change their views based upon evidence in reality. But we are dealing with ideology and ego. Nobody likes to be shown they are wrong. So what happens is people invent ways to show they were really right.

it's so true.

They wail about people losing coverage as if that actually care about whether or not people have insurance. Yet, they hate that the # of uninsured has dropped and scream about the constitution when the individual mandate is brought up

They whine about people's care being paid for by other people, and whine about high deductible plans when all they do is make people pay for their own care.

They are infuriated that they have to pay for maternity care that they will never use, but don't mind paying for the thousands and thousands of conditions their policies cover even though they will never have even a small fraction of them.

 

[sangha]

Which led Green to repeat the claims in the post I responded to in which Jack claimed that he was seeing rainbows from Obamacare.

In both the above copied and the second post, Green was clearly giving credit to Obamacare for slower health inflation. I am truly sorry you can not see this, but it is clear. Just like it was clear that Boehner's prediction was comparing those that lost insurance to those that signed up through the exchange. The good news is whensomeone is aware of their weaknesses, they can attempt to adjust for them. So, now you are aware.

Please highlight the sentence (with bolding) that says ACA deserves the credit for the slower health inflation

 

[sangha]

Florida cancer patient to lose insurance during treatment because of Obamacare - Washington Times



Woman With Stage Four Gallbladder Cancer Loses Insurance Thanks to Obamacare | LifeNews.com



The insurance was 'good' enough to pay for the treatments. But was missing Obama's requirement(s).

You are correct. Some people truly had useless insurance cancelled. But to deny that some people also had useful insurance canceled is silly.

The first doesn't even say that the subject lost anything. It only expresses her worries. Nothing factual to go on.

Here's what I found about the 2nd

Yet her op-ed doesn’t provide all the information one would need to fully appraise her insurance situation. She doesn’t divulge her premium for the UnitedHealth plan which is being withdrawn--she just says it’s “affordable”--or its deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums, or whether her doctors are all within its approved network or out. She doesn’t say whether UniHealth has raised her premiums since she first got the policy in 2005, or if it has, by how much. She doesn’t reveal her income, though it’s reasonable to assume that it might be too high to make her eligible for premium subsidies.

It’s unclear whether her current insurance is a catastrophic coverage policy, as she’s called it sometimes, or a standard PPO. She did say in an earlier interview that she and her husband have paid tens of thousands of dollars from their own pockets for her treatment, and in her op-ed she says UnitedHealth has forked over $1.2 million. Nor is it clear from the text that she would be paying higher premiums next year than she does now. (Her article seems to say only that she's found health plans outside the exchange that are costlier than plans offered by the exchange, but not how they compare with her current premiums.)


All that is the minimum one needs to know to understand the difference between what she's had up to now and what she can get for 2014 and beyond. I called Sundby to try to fill in these blanks, but she hasn’t gotten back to me. If she does, I’ll let you know.

But here’s what we do know today.

UnitedHealth alerted Sundby way back in January that it was pulling out of the California individual insurance market entirely. An inescapable question is whether it did so because of Obamacare, or whether it’s just using Obamacare as an excuse to do something it was itching to do anyway. UnitedHealth’s own statements point to the latter.

The firm informed investors of its decision in May, when it announced it would exit the individual market in all but a dozen states. Since Obamacare’s coverage standards are the same in all states, plainly it wasn’t Obamacare—or Obamacare alone--that prompted its departure from California.

Sundby was fated to lose her UnitedHealth plan sooner or later, Obamacare or not.

As for Sundby, the idea that in the pre-Obamacare era, once UnitedHealth bailed out on her—as it surely intended to do eventually—she’d be able to find any insurer willing to cover her cancer treatment without restrictions, allow her to choose her own doctors and therapies without limit, and cap her personal financial exposure at any but a stratospheric level is, to put it bluntly, ludicrous. She may or may not know that, but the editors of the Wall Street Journal certainly do, and for them to put her story out as if her insurance problems would disappear if only the Affordable Care Act ceased to exist is nothing short of malpractice.

 

[sangha]

More BS anecdotes.

FACT CHECK: No, Obamacare Is Not 'Turning Cancer Patients Away'

The Real Reason That The Cancer Patient Writing In Today's Wall Street Journal Lost Her Insurance | ThinkProgress


It's pretty clear that when the opponents can't even come up with legitimate anecdotes, it's really not a significant issue.

Every single "horror" story they've posted has about as much truth to it as frankenstein or Dracula

 

[buck]

Please highlight the sentence (with bolding) that says ACA deserves the credit for the slower health inflation

And Green hasn't come in to save you... So, let it go. You are wrong.

 

[sangha]

My bubble has involved scrapping w insurance companies my whole d#mn life! but I certainly sympathize if it is true that .ps don't apply to you.

That is not my understanding. My understanding is that family policy oops should not exceed $12,700. and must comply by 2015.

Does anyone else know the facts here?

ludin has proven over and over again that he doesn't

You are right. In fact it goes further. Every plan will have to have OOP limits and many people whose employers offer insurance can still qualify for subsidies on the exchange.

In fact, the latter was proven to ludin in another thread, after which he changed his tune. But now I see his belief has risen from the dead like a true zombie

 

[buck]

The first doesn't even say that the subject lost anything. It only expresses her worries. Nothing factual to go on.

The first indicates she lost her insurance.

Gloria Cantor of Florida has cancer — five brain tumors and tumors in her bones — but she won’t have the health insurance she has relied on for her treatment for much longer.

Mrs. Cantor and her husband, Jay, told WFTV in Orlando that their insurance is being dropped in order to comply with Obamacare regulations.

As you may not understand what it says... It is saying her insurance is being canceled due to obamacare requirements.

 

[sangha]

And Green hasn't come in to save you... So, let it go. You are wrong.

Please highlight the sentence (with bolding) that says ACA deserves the credit for the slower health inflation

Note: Boehner hasn't come in to save you

 

[sangha]

The first indicates she lost her insurance.



As you may not understand what it says... It is saying her insurance is being canceled due to obamacare requirements.

Yes, that what it says. Thing is, the link I posted shows that isn't true

 

[Cassandra]

No, and no. The two good provisions I was referring to were those that opened things up for those with pre-existing conditions and allowing adult children to be covered on their parents' policy until age 26. No stool there. No mandate either. The problems with people signing up when they are sick is easily addressed through regulation. Btw, both those provisions had republican support. The insurance companies signed on early in the process when Obama promised them (in closed door meetings) that single payer was off the table.

The insurance companies would have signed on to a guarantee issue regulation combined w community rating w/o the mandate?? What do you mean by "opening things up"?

The rest of the bill is crap.

NO! The rest is not crap and you would know this if you ever purchased bogus insurance on the individual market which was intended ( in the small print, of course) to mislead and leave the patient with as much medical liability as the company can get away with. The consumer should not have to be a lawyer or physician to determine what the product will provide!

 

[buck]

Yes, that what it says. Thing is, the link I posted shows that isn't true

You seem to be confused about what you did. Why not highlight the link you provided debunking Glroia Cantor's claim.

 

[sangha]

You seem to be confused about what you did. Why not highlight the link you provided debunking Glroia Cantor's claim.

I already pointed out that she lost nothing of concern according to your article

 

[buck]

Yes, that what it says. Thing is, the link I posted shows that isn't true

And yet Green disappeared because he knows you are wrong.